Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2015.

2014–15 Pakistan Super League[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. -- KTC (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either a faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL or confusing, since the Pakistan Super League won't launch until 2016. Therefore, these seasons/tournaments don't actually exist. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is there a predecessor league that these could possibly refer to? If so, it wouldn't hurt to retarget there. Otherwise, agree with nom; delete all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless there is a predecessor per IV. --Rubbish computer 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a predecessor tournament but it would be irrelevant to the Super League. Delete all per nomination. Faizan (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Mar4d (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2017 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. -- KTC (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no mention of this at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2006-2007 NHL Team Playoff Run[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- KTC (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term, and it's confusing. What is an "NHL Team Playoff Run" anyway? -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NHL playoffs are the Stanley Cup playoffs, since the Stanley Cup is the NHL seasonal champion's trophy. The 2006-2007 NHL season ends with the 2007 playoffs. All playoff runs are part of the playoff article, so it is what it is. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll explain further. When I think of a playoff run, I think of a run towards the playoffs: when teams watch their Magic number (sports) decrease as they make a run towards the playoff. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Non-Resident Students' Centre[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite generic term to redirect to a particular university alone. While the article was made for AMU, had it stayed it would have needed disambiguation. But the target is ambiguous and should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a blog posting as it is clearly visible and it is not a student newspaper (it has not claimed so far). Also see (http://wikimapia.org/16921869/NRSC-Club-AMU), (http://www.batori.in/education/2013/12/17/writers-speak-against-communalism-and-casteism/). Arifjwadder (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the blog tag shows as a top row tag when viewed in Firefox > but in Chrome and IE the blog tag looks like it is part of the breadcrumbs leading to the page. What is Batori then if it is not a student newspaper (or an alternative spelling of a Hungarian noble family?) Because whatever it is, my spam filter blocks access to the About Us page which is never a good sign that the publication source has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. The Blog tag must come after the health section, but it is coming below Home which is giving an impression that the article is a blog but it is not (Blog is coming below the bar). See the URL, it is in the EDUCATION section of the site. Batori, in India means NEWS. This word is used in Bengal and north east. You can find dainik batori, ajir batori etc which are all reputed newspaper in Assam, India. I am not sure why About Us page is not opening. Arifjwadder (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arifjwadder: The fact that it is called "News" does not mean it is reputable. It is a blog, as it says on the homepage. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 19:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the home page it says as Blog. It has many sections, and one among them is Blog. The news item was there in the Education section. Thanks,- Arifjwadder (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arifjwadder: Oops, you're right. I support my other point, though. --Rubbish computer 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I concur with the nomination and with Rubbish. This term seems quite generic and doesn't seem a likely search term for someone who wishes to find that university's article. Mww113 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please search by using the term NRSC Club AMU. EyThink (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:PIMP[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- KTC (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't at all think that this redirect was created in the spirit of trolling. However, it is neither an acronym for nor an obvious shortening of the essay it redirects to (Wikipedia:Process is important). While the redirect invokes the term 'pimp', the essay is not related to that term and does not mention it. WP:PII, WP:PI, Wikipedia:REDUCE and Wikipedia:RCFP already redirect to the essay, so it isn't apparent why this redirect is needed. gobonobo + c 07:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 (someone finds it useful) absent a better target. It's been around quite a long time, and there are a significant number of incoming links using the shortcut, and low activity other than very recently. Process is IMPortant. Yeah, it's a stretch, but one that gets used often enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant? Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:PIMP - 30 uses in six years is hardly significant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector, although I find this cringeworthy. --Rubbish computer 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. FWIW, I think it's both humorous and harmless. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GrammarFascist: True. --Rubbish computer 20:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone above me - Harmless and humorous. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep got a chuckle on this one. Anyways it's useful and also funny so I guess it's a keeper. --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Basically just cuts out the "is": WP:ProccessIMPortant = WP:PIMP. It is a reasonable shortening of the essay name, easy to remember, and Wikipedia is not censored. Humorous and harmless per GrammarFascist above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as WP:PIIT for Process Is Important. 112.79.36.120 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rename this is not humorous, this is making light of a rather serious problem. Get rid of it. Gender gap at work here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ed and per nom: this isn't a useful shorthand, especially given the negative connotations of the term (which aren't even relevant to the redirect - if we were to have a WP:PIMP [and we probably shouldn't] it should point at a paid editing-related page or similar). Nick-D (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a reasonable acronym, has unneccessary connotations, and reasoning by Nick, Nom and ED are right on target, Sadads (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading redirect. Harej (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and not misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misleading redirect, and other reasoning per Ed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The user who created this is now banned for content which was deemed disruptive to the community, so this is not an isolated incident on their part. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise and give it the WP:DIVA treatment. That way it stays blue for historical reference, but its use will be discouraged in the future for those who find it negative and/or misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to delete after viewing GorillaWarfare's link. We have evidence of it being used in a harmful light, let's kill it before it gets worse. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Compromise - Over six years, there are only 30 instances of this being used organically in English Wikipedia. The abbreviation is neither obvious nor expected. The word "pimp" has the potential to be offensive to so many, and of so little benefit to us, that we should eliminate it via our civility policy. Arguments of "Wikipedia is not censored!" could not be more misplaced. The article Procuring (prostitution) is unprotected and ready for your edits. (If this is not deleted outright, a reasonable solution would be to leave a deprecated/historic message in its place and discourage its use.) -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical per Tavix, or just delete it. To be honest I saw a use of this recently and thought it was funny, but... still not appropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect was created by Stevertigo who is now banned and even before he was banned was a... how to avoid violating no personal attacks... unhelpful contributor. There's no guarantee anybody else would think this useful except to make fun of this page. SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PII or WP:PI would make sense; WP:PIMP does not. That I found this RfD via a comment comparing process wonkery to the battering of women is telling. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needlessly offensive and unused. It isn't even intuitive. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, and as Panyd says, unintuitive. Wikipedia could do without links like this, even if they were made with good intentions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuzheado, Ed and Panyd --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Öga[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D8; obscure synonyms are unlikely to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, not an obscure term. WilyD 09:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language (Swedish). --Rubbish computer 15:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of proof yet presented that the redirect has usage in English. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an English speaker would not not use the Swedish term to find the article about the eye and I doubt that any Swedish person that is using thre English Wikipedia being unfamiliar with the English term eye. In short the only people that this redirect would benefit would be people that aren't using the English Wikipeida to begin with making the redirect unnecessary. --174.91.187.135 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2018 NHL Entry Draft[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- KTC (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no information about this draft exists at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per the other 100+ WP:CRYSTAL speculative redirects created by Dolovis which were all deleted without exception. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus that it is far too in advance. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2001 U(c)S(c) Attack on Afghanistan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a bot error by Eubot. Delete as a implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Eubot just creates messes that takes decades to clean up -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why's this bot even running if it's creating moronic redirects ?, Anyway quite obviously an implausible search term. –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense (WP:CSD#G1). Will tag it. --Rubbish computer 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iraq mistake[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, which implies that a non-neutral redirect must be an established term in order for it to be allowed. Some people have the opinion that the Iraq War was a mistake, but I don't see anyone calling it the "Iraq mistake". -- Tavix (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure I was with Tavix. Typing in "Iraq was a mistake" into Gsearch gives me as first hit
  • Matthew, Cella; paul, Shinkman (26 May 2015). "GOP Agrees Bush Was Wrong to Invade Iraq". US News. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
Where the first of the lede starts "Invading Iraq was a mistake". That would be fine to mention in Iraq War#Controversy or some such. However as Wikipedians we do have to be WP:NEUTRAL. I don't go as far as Tavix saying that we must have this right exact term for a WP:RNEUTRAL, but whether it is useful as a search. To my mind, it would be better if Gsearch etc. listed Wikipedia first with the term in it from the virtue of it being mentioned there, then people might learn something, but perhaps that is gaming the system (WP:GAME?) Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could also refer to anything involving Iraq that was a mistake. For example, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait in the Gulf War could be considered an "Iraq mistake" or even when they invaded Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we don't actually have that section at that article, I was just guessing to make an example. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The points made above are valid but I don't think this is a plausible search term. People searching for a page about the Iraq war will probably type in "Iraq War", "War in Iraq", or similar but I don't think this term is established enough to warrant it remaining in spite of WP:RNEUTRAL Mww113 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete there are many many Iraq mistakes. And this shows WP:BIAS in terms of WP:RECENTISM and failure of WP:WORLDWIDE. The world is larger than just U.S. politics of the 21st century. Indeed, Sikes-Picot is an Iraq mistake, and many people consider the 100-hour war to have been a mistake, as it should have continued and ousted Saddam Hussein at that time. Then there's the lack of support of the Marsh Arabs after the 100-hour war. The support of Saddam Hussein in the first place, when he went against Iran; Paul Bremer's de-Baatthification drive, Obama's pullout, etc ad inifitum -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, people that seek information about the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath are unlikely to use this search term. People that have written in opposition against the whole matter haven't used "Iraq mistake" in any kind of significant way that it's a part of the popular lexicon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Southern kurdish native homeland/southern Kurdistan/KRG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- KTC (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:SUBPAGE violation and an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iraqnam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, which implies that a non-neutral redirect must be an established term in order for it to be allowed. It's also a bit of an WP:XY problem as it could just as easily refer to Iraq or Vietnam (and their respective wars, I guess). -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are between Iraq and a hard place. Si Trew (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very likely invented POV term. Not quite a WP:G3 hoax, but only just. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would not refer to Vietnam, so there's no problem with that. Unless you think all the -gate topics could equally refer to the original Watergate scandal. This is the same. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a poor analogy, -gate is a well-known suffix and I've never heard of -nam being used as one. If anything, it's simply a portmanteau of Iraq and Vietnam. -- Tavix (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Watergate-gate? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. -gate as a suffix does come from Watergate, and has been used ever since as Irangate, Iraqgate, Namgate, and so on, even which is turnining on its head Washingtongate at some point I think by some lazy journalist. Delete', then, WP:NOTDIC.

One cannot hope to bribe or twist

Thank God! The British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

— Humbert Wolff

Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You left out Crackgate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Gamergate, Deflategate... Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be an obscure neologism at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WAR (file format) (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely useless and misleading. This would suggest that there are multiple file formats named WAR, but the disambiguation just shows one: WAR (file format). -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - is double disambiguation a thing we do? I recall there being a WAR compression format in the 90s but we don't have an article about it. Even if we did, this is just too weird. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there used to be a disambiguation page at this location. It was moved to the destination location in 2008. The destination location was overwritten by an article at 03:56, 5 January 2014‎ by Lankiveil. There used to be a WAR file format (KDE) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a suitable target no longer exists. --Rubbish computer 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

War V (comics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Gazer and War (Marvel Comics)#War (Abraham Kieros), respectively. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused about these redirects. Is there really multiple things (let alone anything) at War (disambiguation) that could mean "War V (comics)" or "War II (comics)"? -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Confusing indeed. Google turns up nothing. We have The War (comics) which was a limited-run series of four issues (but not a fifth) but I doubt these were meant to refer to that. Hopefully someone with much more obscure comics knowledge knows something about this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alias “War” has been used by various Marvel characters. One may disambiguate by appending Roman numerals. Retarget War II (comics) to War (Marvel Comics)#War (Abraham Kieros) and War V (comics) to Gazer. Gorobay (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorobay. The article doesn't include all the characters named War, just a few of them. Should there be a section for each of them? Also, the Roman numeral designation should be included in the article somewhere, it would've helped alleviate my confusion! (I'd be bold, but have no knowledge on comics.) -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC) -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Susan Campbell[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. A disambiguation page has been created to solve the problem. Since it is no longer a redirect, RFD no longer applies here. Contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of redirect Currently a redirect is in place so that searches for ‘Susan Campbell’ bring visitors to the article Susan Foreman. This confusing because there is another article on Susan M. Campbell. I believe it will be less confusing if visitors conduct a search on ’Susan Campbell’ that they will be brought to the Susan M. Campbell article. Susan Foreman is the name of a fictional character in a television programme. I think the character’s married name was Campbell, which may be why the redirect was put in place originally. However, this seems a little confusing for visitors searching for Susan M. Campbell. In reality, the latter is more usually known as Susan Campbell but the article title appears to have had an ‘M’ added to it at the time it was created so as to differentiate between her and the TV character. Would it be possible to have the redirect deleted so that searches for ’Susan Campbell’ bring visitors directly to Susan M. Campbell? Fbell74 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_22&oldid=1138580763"